Bert and Ernie agenda

[Andara Bledin]

The whole right for two people to marry without regard to gender is a basic human rights issue.

Either you're for human rights. Or you're against human rights (in which case you're a hater, even if merely a weak one). Or you're apathetic about human rights and it'll be in part your own damn fault when those who are against go after you because you don't conform to their narrow world-views.

And it's a legal contract we're discussing here, so religion has absolutely nothing to do with it and shouldn't even be brought up.

^-.-^

[Ginger Tea]

If for example Churches of all demominations never performed marriages and all services were a civil matter performed in courts or similarly appointed venues, regardless of your religion and all were performed as a faithless ceremony as its a legal issue not a religious one, would you say that supporting the right to gay weddings is a good thing?

Were not fighting for gay couples to be wed in churches or for religions of America (in this case) to be more accepting of gay people and welcoming them to x y or z religion, just that a man can marry (in a registry office) another man and the same for two women.

Keeping the church well away from marriage.
Two athiests can get married (not necesarily in a church) and it's not an affront to god (not that they would believe in one) it's two people committed to each other and want to spend their lives together, not that being married changes much.

If marriage was something that only happened to Jewish derived religions then I would not give a flying fuck about it as it would be a religious issue, my parents were not religious, so I like alot of people these days would be born out of wedlock.

Marriage has not been the sole domain for the church for so long I have not seen the point of their involvement bar fancy locations.
Unmarried hetrosexual couples have fought and in some countries won the right to have similar standings to married couples, most are to do with tax and inheritance, but it has not diluted marriage, both love each other as much as a married couple, they just chose not to get married.

[PepperElf]

So we're going down the "You're being intolerant of my intolerance" route?

O now I'm a hater AND intolerant.
All because I am not running around supporting gay marriage.


So that means YOU hate all veterans. Are you supporting the DAV?
No? What do you have against disabled vets? Seriously, what's wrong with you that you can't support their rights?



See? I just did the same thing. I decided that all people who don't support the DAV hate disabled vets.

Cept it is the right way.

Yes supporting disabled vets is the right way. Start donating to the DAV!




That's my point. You can't just automatically declare "everyone who doesn't see things my way is a hater and intolerant". It's unrealistic.


Just as it's unrealistic for me to assume you all hate disabled vets.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

I'd throw out that it's not that different than drunk driving.
Drunk drivers do not hate pedestrians, drunk drivers do not hate other drivers, but that does not make them any less responsible for the harm they cause.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that comparison.

A Drunk Driver makes a conscious decision to put him/herself into a state where their judgement will be impaired. This action can directly lead to someone being killed by the later actions of the inebriated driver.

In other words, they hit someone else and kill them.

Not voting for marriage equality is not likely to get someone killed as a direct result.

Before you say "Well someone could die as a result of the intolerance", let me just say that it would be an indirect result (as opposed to the drunk plowing into someone personally) AND that it is equally likely that someone can be killed because people DID vote for marriage equality and for the same reason...

...the aforementioned intolerance.

In a very real sense, you are talking about a situation that can be compared to the equal rights movements. That by voting against it you could indirectly harm people by fostering the air of intolerance that lead to violence against the Black Community, that by voting FOR it you could indirectly harm people by pissing off the intolerant then took it out on the Black Community, and you could harm people by not voting thus creating an air of apathy and indifference which led to a continuance of the violence against the Black Community because people didn't care enough to stop it.

The same applies here. There are people who hate homosexuals and that hatred can and sometimes manifests as violence. Voting one way or the other or abstaining will not stop those people from committing that violence.

Thus the people who vote are not directly responsible for any death unless they go out there and personally kill someone.

[smileyeagle1021]

I don't remember suggesting that they would win, but that there could end up becoming a precedent where the government ends up trying to tell churches what they can and cannot do. which is in effect a violation of the first amendment.

At which time it would be appropriate to fight against first amendment violations.
As of yet, there is no threat to first amendment protections, the argument that if marriage equality becomes law churches will be forced to change is a red herring at best.

Using the logic that it might, by some series of events that can't exactly be explained or predicted, lead to the government violating the first amendment therefor we have to stop it from happening makes about as much sense as saying I may get hit by a car so we should outlaw cars.

[Ladeeda]

So we're going down the "You're being intolerant of my intolerance" route?

[Gravekeeper]

Bull shit. Yes YOU might feel your cause is worthy and is the right way, but that doesn't mean it IS the right way.

Cept it is the right way. Because its a human rights issue. End of story. You don't have to support it, and I don't consider you a "hater" for not supporting it, but your reason for opposing it was misguided and don't be surprised if people take issue with that. Seeing as inaction / apathy / ignorance are very real threats to this particular issue.

And yes there WILL be people here who still think, "but my way IS the right way therefore it's OK to judge you for not supporting it".... that doesn't make it true. That's just an attempt to justify your own hatred and intolerance.

....Okay.

And since I've already found attempts online of people suing - or trying to - sue churches for not performing gay marriages it's hard to say "it won't happen" when it already has.

As has already been pointed out, lawsuits are not precedents and the scenario you're worried about will frankly never happen in a free country. Especially not in the US of all places.

[AdminAssistant]

ok that's a far cry from "discrimination"
people are talking about churches as if they can legally tell say, a black/white couple "no you can't get married" when they're both members of the same church.

The "church" may not say that, but an individual pastor/preacher/priest/Justice of the Peace certainly can. In order to get married, you have to find a qualified individual who is willing to marry you. That person can decide that they don't want to marry you for just about any reason. That will not change, ever. It is my hope that religious folks eventually become enlightened enough to not tolerate such discrimination or hate speech from the pulpit. But the government can't, and won't, force that.

[HYHYBT]

What you said at the beginning was that you thought gay marriage would lead to churches being forced to change. Nowhere have you given an explanation of why that would be, GIVEN THAT it's proven untrue for any other comparable situation. What makes *gay* marriage different *in that regard* than interracial marriage, marriage after divorce, marriage to someone of a different faith, etc?

[PepperElf]

Current legislation allows church organizations to choose not to provide sectarian services to those who are not part of their religious sect. And the state stays out of it.

In fact, the state stays out of it so much, and people have accepted this status quo so fully, that I'm having difficulty even finding any references to lawsuits against churches who wouldn't perform sectarian services. If you can provide links to any of these, I would appreciate it.

^-.-^

ok that's a far cry from "discrimination"
people are talking about churches as if they can legally tell say, a black/white couple "no you can't get married" when they're both members of the same church.

and sure i know someone will bring up the past but i'm talking about right here and now. if a church said that are you saying there would be no lawsuit over it?

and that is why many people think that if this becomes a legal "right" that churches will be pressured to perform marriages they disagree with. and yes there will be some who want to say it's a crazy unfounded fear and that people are skeered, but ... frankly i do not believe that i will never happen as others here seem to think.

[Hyena Dandy]

They can't win. If they don't win, there is no precedent. That is not a precedent for the government to tell you what to do if the suit gets laughed out. Only if the suit succeeds can it be considered a precedent.

[Greenday]

Even if gay marriage was legalized, the First Amendment would continue to allow churches to discriminate at free will and it would be totally legal. The law would affect legal marriages, not religious ceremonies.

[Andara Bledin]

Current legislation allows church organizations to choose not to provide sectarian services to those who are not part of their religious sect. And the state stays out of it.

In fact, the state stays out of it so much, and people have accepted this status quo so fully, that I'm having difficulty even finding any references to lawsuits against churches who wouldn't perform sectarian services. If you can provide links to any of these, I would appreciate it.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

"discriminate" ? How so?

I mean in today's culture not say back in the 60s.

[Andara Bledin]

Since people are already suing over it and losing, I don't see why this would ever be an issue.

It has been established very firmly that churches are allowed to discriminate about certain things based on faith alone, so I don't understand how a change to the law of the legal and secular definition of marriage would suddenly change how religious organizations were allowed to operate.

^-.-^